|
The zipline saga was hilarious. They built the drat thing but never actually sat down and did the math to build it safely. they winged it. iirc their zipline was designed in such a way that an 80lb weight would accelerate to around 60 mph before deadending into a giant tree. It was very steep and only got used to destroy some sandbags before they scrapped the idea.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
If I remember they built the launch pad like 150 feet higher than it should have been
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:01
|
|
|
The pictures from that were probably the funniest thing I've seen on this forum in the entire time I've been here (starting in 2003? 4?) When that thread was posted I remember looking at them, laughing and laughing until I stopped, then laughing and laughing when I looked at them again. Pretty considerable effort went into that project with no person involved realizing the absolutely indisputable, obvious truth that it would loving kill 100% of its users that weren't trained stuntmen. And they built it for children
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
And unlike a goon project, the workmanship and such looked ok, it wasnt some slapdash thing in moms backyard, it was a big serious zipline like you might expect to see at a summer camp. Except this one was, by design, fatal to use in all cases I'm honestly laughing just remembering the pictures to write this
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1018965087074177024?s=09 Im loving lolling again. FOR CHILDREN. Never mind the speed, if you just let loving go of the zipline you'd die from the drop. people here are so loving stupid imagining the line of 8 year olds in safety goggles and dayglo harnesses on that platform, some crying, being jostled and put upon by a 300 pound man with a beard who is trying to get them to commit suicide with the zipline he made terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Jul 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:15
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1018965087074177024 Don't forget the Doom bathroom, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
Dude got a week long probation for trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1018965087074177024?s=09 A man yelling into a loudspeaker “One out of two gets a brake, the other follows! When the kid with a brake gets killed, the one who is following picks up the brake! Cowards and traitors will be shoved!”
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
There is way too much groverhaus erasure going on in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure one of the low carb guys fed his dog heavy cream until the dog died I used to eat tons of eggs because they were cheap but even at my peak of low carb I was having low fat too Then I went too nuts with unregulated supplements and woops high blood pressure time. But God drat those were good workouts
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
"So you just need to go back and get a new date?" asks the clerk, outside chambers. They wave myself and the other lawyer forward. "Uh, we have other parties here pro se that may have an issue with-" I start to reply. "Oh, no no I'm not pro se or representing anybody, I'm not lawyer, I'm just here as a [party]! I'm not representing myself, no sir!" interjects a large man nearby, taking a half step back and raising his palms. The clerk's expression goes blank. They look at me and raise their eyebrows. My gaze flicks to the man, and back to the clerk. I purse my lips and slowly nod. A vigorous discussion of my request for a continuance follows, during which the clerk manages to confirm that the man has not retained counsel. We apparently have too many people to go into chambers, due to COVID restrictions. The clerk goes in alone, and returns with a minute order striking the hearing, to be reset "by agreement of the parties." My thoughts on how many of the man's strong and varied objections reached the judge's ears go unvoiced. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jul 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I'm fairly sure one of the low carb guys fed his dog heavy cream until the dog died I have been alive long enough for eggs to have gone through the "horrible food, they'll kill you dead, don't eat them/great food, good fats and protein, fats and proteins are good" cycle about eight times over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
The psychedelics thing is...very messy. We're hearing about it now because many billions of dollars in venture capital are getting fed into it by people like I-poo poo-you-not Peter Thiel, with all the usual pressure and funded research and media coverage bag of tricks. Compass pathways is the front his people are using, iirc, but there are others. The old guard of academics who research psychedelics are, as you might expect, antiauthoritarian hippie types who hate the guts of these companies, further complicating things. My understanding is limited and based on some discussion with researchers and data people on the academic side, but basically theraputic use of psychedelics, if empirically supported, won't resemble the way people use it recreationally and will need tight monitoring because although it's not addictive, it can have psych effects every bit as harmful as its putative benefits. The best source of info/researcher I know in the area is a goon, but I don't think he's public with his work on here, and I'm not heading into TCC to find out. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jul 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 07:27
|
|
|
At least there are serious efforts now. MindMed partnered with University Hospital Base (Switzerland) to conduct research on use of LSD under clinical (ie. mental health professional) supervision. They even developed a "LSD neutralizer" (patent pending) to shorten/stop the effects of a bad trip, so the chances of psychological harm are theoretically very reduced. Revive Therapeutics is doing the same thing in partnership with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but they are studying the effects of psilocybin. There are options out there. Moose_Knuck fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Jul 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
There's a good book on the topic called How to Change Your Mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:There's a good book on the topic called How to Change Your Mind. Yep, I've read that. Good book. My own psychiatrist is also an old hippie, and has hinted strongly that I should try some psilocybin (well, he has pretty much said it, he's just obviously not going to go on record and tell me to do something illegal). He's not an idiot, and I fully trust him. On the other hand, he's not going to hand me some shrooms, and again, well, they're illegal. Agreed DV that treatment use is not the same as recreational drug use. The clinical trial treatments are to my knowledge from reading about them all (as you would expect) measured amounts of obviously just psilocybin, for example - they're not having people munching shrooms in clinical trials. I don't really think there are "options" yet though. I mean, the small chance of getting into a clinical trial and then living close enough to the clinical trial means it's really not a true option at this point. SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jul 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
For the record the psychedelics research community hates Pollan's guts. Separately, I also hate his guts for his food material. He's not a good source.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:For the record the psychedelics research community hates Pollan's guts. Separately, I also hate his guts for his food material. He's not a good source. I have also heard that. I took the book for its value of opening awareness that psychedelics could have value in treatment of depression, anxiety, etc. I could tell that a lot of his stuff was overblown and sensationalist, but that's just selling books. SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jul 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Is MSM still cook county? Any perspective on the shootings this weekend?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Lawgoons who did a mid/late year lateral, what was your experience on getting a bonus at your new firm? Full bonus, pro-rata, no bonus at all? Any firm that isn't offering a comp bonus probably isn't worth it. That is the bare minimum and probably indicative that they don't have a market based bonus structure anyway. I lateraled and got it written in my offer letter that I would get an above market bonus at year end. Sorry to distract from discussions regarding self medicating due to our lovely profession.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:Any firm that isn't offering a comp bonus probably isn't worth it. That is the bare minimum and probably indicative that they don't have a market based bonus structure anyway. More money = better medicine (single malt)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:Is MSM still cook county? Any perspective on the shootings this weekend? it sucks. i'll ask my public defender friend what's up but i think its just been a bad year and is only getting worse. the new mayor was a lawyer who's really good at blaming the right things and then doing nothing about anything. hell, maybe if she opened the beaches people could cool down a little (before more shootings happened at night there) One funny side effect of living here is I was arguing with seattle goons they don't have real gangs because they have so few shootings, as I'd totally forgotten this poo poo isn't normal. we shouldn't break the 90s records but boy it's gonna be close especially if fall stays hot. But boy I cannot remember the last time this many kids, including little ones , got killed mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jul 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2020 13:48
|
|
|
Lori Lightfoot defended one of the violent Jefferson Tap cop beaters, presumably pro boner. Never forget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Lori Lightfoot defended one of the violent Jefferson Tap cop beaters, presumably pro boner. Never forget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 06:17
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The profession predisposes people to sadbrains. The job fundamentally is to care about things (legal technicalities and formalities) that have no meaning except that we collectively agreed to make them a big deal. So the kind of people who care about that bullshit are going to be sadbrains type worriers. So much this. I remember the cognitive dissonance when it finally struck me that my PE clients didn’t give a poo poo about the quality of my legal analysis or work product so long as they could say they’d run it past outside counsel and we said it was ok. Everything about managing your future and making partner is client relations (that is, sales). Large parts of the profession are fundamentally “bullshit jobs” in the Graeber sense of your actual role and ostensible role being different. Try to understand your actual role and do that. Caveat that I never once regretted pissing off clients when they asked for unethical poo poo, which happened rarely but not that rarely. Examples: asked not to tell the other side that we were representing our client not them both jointly; asked to take instructions from Bob, who was a buddy of the middleman who brokered the deal and not actually employed by the client; asked to accept a performance bonus (a small one, everyone has their price of course) by the same middleman; asked to falsify a shareholder register and related minutes; asked to give a legal opinion that was not true. I said no to all of these and it was a bit scary and I got yelled at a lot and I’m very glad in each case that I did. And I have to say that in each case the partners backed me up (well except the performance bonus one because I didn’t tell them about that).
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
nm posted:Unless you can show she did it pro-bono, I'm not holding who a criminal defense attorney represents against them. quote:Our client, Officer Paul Powers, had only been on the force for three years. He was represented pro bono by partner Lori Lightfoot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 13:53
|
|
|
Welp
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
I'm sorry, "Lori Lightfoot" how did she have time to represent anyone between the pumpkin dance in the halfling village and getting dumped by Pippin?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 13:58
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Lori Lightfoot defended one of the violent Jefferson Tap cop beaters, presumably pro boner. Never forget. nm posted:Unless you can show she did it pro-bono, I'm not holding who a criminal defense attorney represents against them. gently caress outta hear with this horseshit. A lawyer should never be judged for who they represent, and under what terms they represent them. The legal system demands that everyone be represented by counsel. If you let a loving sliver of this poo poo in, then its open season on the lot of us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
Stop white knighting, you Samwise-looking simp
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 14:03
|
|
|
Alan Dershowitz and Jay Sekulow can gently caress off forever actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:gently caress outta hear with this horseshit. A lawyer should never be judged for who they represent, and under what terms they represent them. The legal system demands that everyone be represented by counsel. There's a wide gulf between representing a criminal to keep the State honest and prevent them from abusing power and knowingly exploiting loopholes in regulatory law so you can protect a company knowingly giving cancer to its employees. Like, I agree with you in the context of criminal law, but there's a poo poo-load of psychopath lawyers working on absolutely heinous poo poo that rely on other lawyers like you shielding them from completely indefensible positions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Alan Dershowitz and Jay Sekulow can gently caress off forever actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
Sorry, this is the hill I die on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Sorry, this is the hill I die on. You're not even arguing for the right to representation, you're arguing for freedom from judgment or criticism. I know we just had many posts about mental health, but if you represent Dow Chemical or Exxon and you can't take criticism, get a new loving client or a new loving job. Lawyers are allowed to say "no."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Sorry, this is the hill I die on. Underhill, surely?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:You're not even arguing for the right to representation, you're arguing for freedom from judgment or criticism. You're almost right: I'm saying that we (lawyers), of all people, should stand against the notion that its good and OK to judge/criticize/condemn a lawyer on the basis of who they represent. The idea that any person should be denied legal representation in any case is so loving abhorrent to me (and should be as abhorrent to you) that condemning their representative solely because they are their representative is, in and of itself, bad. Qualify it all you want, but its still wrong. "Oh, well its OK in civil trials if the Defendant is a big bad company that is obviously wrong in this case, and there are no in house lawyers, etc." But then you're only arguing over the number and nature of the qualifiers. I know we have ethics and morals 100% figured out these days and that after 15,000 years we are the first generation to get everything right, but if we had let public pressure dictate which cases get representation in the past, you can troll the list of "most important cases in US jurisprudence, and just start striking them off one-by-one. Peace out Larry Flynt. Bye Bye, Stephen Engle. Now of course, you're going to say, "I'm allowed to criticize who I want/if you can't handle the criticism/someone will always represent these people so its fine for me to criticize who does it" or some amalgamation of "I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm just saying its bad and wrong, and I'm allowed to say that." Yes, you are allowed to say and believe that, we are not children, we both understand this. I am saying the proper thing is to stand against that kind of passive tyranny. Just because we know that generally public pressure has a limit to how many lawyers it will push away from a case, doesn't mean we should be OK with it. There is already a bright-line test for whether a lawyer discharged their duties in a manner appropriate to the profession, and that is that whether the lawyer is doing something unethical, or literally illegal. Criticize lawyers for their conduct all you want; we have standards that we agree on. But allowing our feelings about a defendant to cloud our judgment about their lawyer is a lateral attack on the nature of representation, and we should avoid that at all costs. We should avoid that as a matter of principal. We should have the constitution of character to admit that any case with any potential merit should be adjudicated on its merits, regardless of whether the parties to the case have any merit themselves. And we should think this way because the alternative, no matter how close we actually get, is horrifying. And if you think anyone besides lawyers will understand this distinction, and stand up for it, you're delusional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Just because we know that generally public pressure has a limit to how many lawyers it will push away from a case, doesn't mean we should be OK with it. And let me expound on this. We know of all the cases that made it through and changed America for the better, in spite of public pressure against the case and the defendant. What we don't know are all the cases that were never brought because of public pressure, or the cases that didn't succeed because the best lawyers for the case were scared off of taking it. To admit that the sort of public pressure you advocate for would (and should) cause lawyers not to take a case, then you must admit that similar public pressure in the past, and in the future will work in the exact same way, against cases that you would say today should not be treated that way. We can never know how much better off we might be today if lawyers in the past could have been unshackled from this sort of mob-mentality, and we cannot predict what negative consequences it might have in the future. You feel comfortable wielding that power, with faith in yourself and the rest of humanity to wield it responsibly. I do not have that faith or comfort, and gently caress only knows why anyone would think we, as a society, have shown that we are responsible enough to handle it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Alan Dershowitz and Jay Sekulow can gently caress off forever actually blarzgh posted:Sorry, this is the hill I die on. Pook Good Mook posted:You're not even arguing for the right to representation, you're arguing for freedom from judgment or criticism. Tbh I would go with criticizing HOW these lawyers represent lovely clients, not JUST that they represent lovely clients. Dersh and Sekulow beclowned themselves with how they defended Trump. If Lightfoot or lawyers repping Dow did some unethical or clowny bullshit in representing their clients, then gently caress 'em. But no thank you kn dumping on them just because they repped bad people. My prime example of judging a lawyer on how they rep a client is the lawyer for the affluenza kid in Texas. gently caress that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2020 16:12
|
|
